Assessable value excludes post-clearance charges despite invoice-value option under central excise valuation rules.

Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 governs assessable value, and a notification under Rule 8(1), including the invoice-value option under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., cannot displace that statutory valuation scheme. Post-manufacturing or post-clearance charges, including bank commission, hundi commission and bank interest shown in invoices, do not form part of assessable value because they are not part of the manufacturing value base. The effect is that such expenses remain excludible even where invoiced to the customer, and abatement is available for those post-clearance charges.

---

---

Issues: Whether bank commission, hundi commission and interest charged in invoices, being post-clearance expenses, were includible in the assessable value notwithstanding the assessee's option under Notification No. 120/75-C.E.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 lays down the statutory basis for determining assessable value, and any notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules is subordinate to that statutory scheme. The option to follow invoice-value procedure under Notification No. 120/75-C.E. does not exclude the application of the statutory principles governing valuation. Charges that are in the nature of post-manufacturing or post-clearance expenses, including bank commission, hundi commission and interest payable to the bank in the customer's account, do not form part of the assessable value, even if shown in the invoice.

Conclusion: The disputed charges were not includible in the assessable value, and the assessee was entitled to abatement for such post-clearance expenses.

Ratio Decidendi: Valuation under section 4 must prevail over a procedural notification, and post-manufacturing or post-clearance expenses remain excludible from assessable value despite their inclusion in the invoice.

---